In the Interest of Neo-Luddism

by Theodore Dalrymple (September 2023)

Elm Grove, Southsea, Previous to 1897


The word luddite has negative connotations. It is used to mean a person or a policy that refuses to take advantage of, or actively seeks to destroy, modern machinery, in order that everything may remain the same. The luddite is taken to be ridiculous at best, but mulish or outright dim at worst. He is a technological Canute, vainly bidding the tide to return.

But I am something of a luddite myself—in my heart, if not in my practice. Like most such luddites, I am a hypocrite: I want the benefits of modernity without its drawbacks. I want its conveniences without the ugliness than makes them possible. I want to have my cake and eat it, or as the French say, the butter and the money for the butter.

If I were a rich man—and with recent economic developments I feel further away from that happy state than ever—I should fund a prize for the best essay on the disastrous aesthetic effects on the world of the private motor car, permitting entrants to dilate also upon its deleterious spiritual effects.

The idea for this prize came to me some time ago when I read a book about Arthur Conan Doyle’s early adult life in Southsea, the town adjacent to Portsmouth, on the south coast of England, where, newly qualified, he set up as a doctor. The book, by Geoffrey Stavert, is titled A Study in Southsea: The Unrevealed Life of Doctor Arthur Conan Doyle, and was published in 1987.

If I may be allowed a slight, non-luddite or even anti-luddite digression here, let me add that a quick search on the internet revealed that Stavert, whose full name was Geoffrey Scott Stavert, was captured near Tunis during the war (I am of the generation for whom the war can mean only the Second World War), and spent a little more than six months in a camp in Italy, from which he and all the other inmates fled once Italy had surrendered. His memoirs, unpublished, are to be found on the internet, and show that he was a man both of humour and character. What a marvelous (and terrible) instrument is the internet, then! It gives us access in a few seconds to information that would otherwise take us years to obtain, and it destroys out minds by insinuating that nothing other than itself is necessary for us to become well-informed. It gives and it takes away.

But to return to the motor car and its destructiveness. The picture that gave me the idea of my proposed prize was that of Elm Grove in Southsea in Conan Doyle’s time. It is a pleasantly wooded street with no motor cars, exuding calm. A couple of children stand on the pavement looking toward the camera, one of them in a cape, but the photograph is too indistinct to make out their expression. Clearly there are villas behind the trees, but only a gatehouse and the stuccoed pillars of gates are visible.

There is practically no residential street as pleasant left in the country today. Such streets are now lined by cars: moreover, they are, like Jacob’s coat, of many colours. (At least when cars began their career towards ubiquity, they had the good taste, with few exceptions, all to be black. If only manufacturers had adhered to Henry Ford’s great dictum, that you can have any colour you like, so long as it’s black. Instead, they gave in to the increasing demand for self-expression via minor variations in the mass-produced objects that people owned. This is not to say that nothing is expressed by these means. I believe it is true that bright red cars are more often involved in serious accidents than, say, dark green ones: their owners are more inclined to aggression. And if I were dictator of the world, which fortunately both for myself and others I am not, I would prohibit white cars, which I particularly abominate as an indelible blot on any landscape.)

In Victorian suburban streets that were once civilised and comfortable, if not elegant, the front gardens that gave it charm have been replaced by places to park cars, tiny parking lots, asphalted over so that hardly a blade of grass remains to be seen. A Mercedes or a BMW automatically takes precedence over a delphinium or a honeysuckle, and this has a deleterious knock-on effect. The street having become ugly and given over to machines, pride in the appearance of the houses themselves declines, and neglect and decay set in. What is the point of upkeep in the midst of such ugliness?

As for new houses, they often appear to have been built for the comfort and convenience of cars, rather than of people. In many homes, the liquid crystal screen is what the icon was in the Russian peasant’s izba; by the same token, the garage seems to be the focus of the whole house, not perhaps in size but in visual dominance and unavoidability. The message is, car first, people afterwards.

I recognise, of course, that for many people, the car is a symbol of freedom: and also that I could hardly do without one myself. I use it not only by necessity, but sometimes for pleasure also—although less and less frequently. I sometimes visit places by car that would otherwise be all but inaccessible.

But there is a very stiff price to be paid for this liberty, if liberty it is. Occasionally, for example, I have to drive on the ring roads that are strung like a noose round Paris or London. Millions of people, whom I sincerely pity, have to do so daily, twice a day in fact. What kind of liberation is the car for them? Many of them have to spend an eighth, or even a sixth, of their waking lives (except for weekends and holidays) in slow-crawling traffic jams, chronically fuming at the consumption of their lives by this deeply unpleasurable activity, to which they must pay attention while being bored by it at the same time. And when there is a public holiday, and millions try to leave the city, things are even worse. The worst traffic jams are not for business but for pleasure, or rather, as the price that much be paid for pleasure.

Who can look at pictures of the freeways of Los Angeles without thinking, by no means in a flattering way ‘What a piece of work is a man?’ What collective madness is this, hundreds of millions or billions of hours of life expended merely going to a fro? If you add them all up, they probably amount to many times more hours of human life lost than were lost to the Covid pandemic, certainly in the prime of life.

There is not much to be said for the Cuban regime, but it kept cars out of Havana, except for a relatively few, and one realises there what a city can be, aesthetically, without cars: provided, of course, that it is built right, as Havana was. Unfortunately, the absence of cars there is accompanied by the absence also of public transport, but the two absences do not have to go together.

Public transport can both speed up and slow down the pace of life. In the centre of a city like Paris, it speeds it up. When I am there, I could not do all that I do if I had to go everywhere by car, all the more so if everyone else had to do likewise. Public transport not only make for an efficient use of time but adds greatly to the quality of life. If it is subsidised, at least those who pay the subsidies reap some direct benefit from them and therefore do not begrudge paying them.

Alas, public transport so good and widespread that nobody needs a car is about as realistic as a society so perfect that nobody will have to be good. Nevertheless, it is not true that ease of access is an unmitigated good. In the first place, difficulty and enjoyment are not opposites. What is experienced without effort rarely stays long in the mind: rather, it renders a person blasé.

Ease of access to pleasures, moreover, leads to a kind of inflation, that of the necessity of ever greater sensation. The easier it is to go somewhere, the further you want to go; and everyone else is like you. As any observer of mass tourism will know, the pleasure of the most marvelous or delightful place can be vitiated almost in its entirety by crowds. There are exceptions, no doubt: Lourdes, for example, which I recently visited, would be completely uninteresting without the crowds, whose main object, however, is not tourism.

I sometimes receive, unsolicited, brochures offering me what they call ‘the holiday of a lifetime.’ This appears principally to consist of a short period of absurdly luxurious sloth (at equally absurd expense) in a sunny climate with waving palm trees in the background. I count myself as having had a fortunate life indeed that such offers hold no attraction for me. I am lucky to have had a life in which bathing in asses’ milk, or otherwise luxuriating, would not count as a high point, let alone as the high point, of my life.

But let us briefly return once more to the joys of Southsea before the advent of the motor car. In the same book is a picture of the promenade as it was in Conan Doyle’s day, the only vehicle in the road a tram. The promenade had elegance and grandeur without inhumanity of scale; it was civilised without egotistical claims on the part of those who built it to artistic originality or genius. There was not much to do there, I imagine, except promenade and socialise in a somewhat restrained way, with occasional visits to the music hall and trips to the pier. Sensation, if it was wanted, was provided by the yellow press and novels such as those written by Mrs Belloc Lowndes, the sister of the much more famous Hilaire; while pornography titillated by its clandestinity rather than bored by its omnipresence.


A horse-drawn tram at the King’s Road Junction at Portsmouth, 1901


I remember (vaguely) the tail end of those days in the early 1950s. Our joys were small, but none the less real or satisfying for that. We children were expected to entertain ourselves for most of the time, without the aid of external stimulation, and did so without much difficulty.

Even if the Luftwaffe had not bombed Portsmouth and the adjacent Southsea, the modern architects would not have been able to resist ruining it. They have, after all, done incomparably more damage to the urban fabric of the country that the Luftwaffe managed: they would not dare to leave anywhere alone lest it stood as a reproach to their own baleful efforts. The motor car has added a great deal to the visual nightmare—a nightmare now so lasting and permanent that most of the time we do even recognise the nightmare for what it is.  The omnipresence of a phenomenon does not foster that sine qua non of judgment, comparison.

I know, of course, that there is no going back and I wouldn’t want to do so if it meant doing without many of the conveniences of daily life.  I suffer from a condition of old age for which there was no treatment in the early years of my life, and which, in its absence, would by now have rendered me a near cripple and made my life a misery.

Moreover, I rather like modern Southsea. Enough of it remains for it to have retained some of its gentility, which lies cheek by jowl with a certain, almost bohemian loucheness. It has excellent Asian restaurants, and bric-a-brac shops with unexpected treasures. There are nightclubs with bouncers as big as the Ritz and pubs with sad local drunks. Alas, a second-hand bookshop run by an unworldly man who comes straight out of a novel by Mrs Belloc Lowndes, and who seemed not to have realised that prices have risen since he was a lad, has closed down. Unlike the prices of his books, his rent had risen.

One must enjoy the present, but lamentation over the past is surely one of its pleasures.


Table of Contents


Theodore Dalrymple’s latest books are Neither Trumpets nor Violins (with Kenneth Francis and Samuel Hux) and Ramses: A Memoir from New English Review Press.

Follow NER on Twitter @NERIconoclast


6 Responses

  1. Your point about ease of access to pleasures leading to a kind of inflation is well made.

    The first television my wife and I owned in the 1970s was a hand-me-down so small we had to sit right up close to watch it. As I recall, only the screen was tiny. The part you didn’t look at behind extended back a goodly proportion of our little room. I don’t recall whether it was black and white or colour, but it didn’t make any difference as, if it was colour, those tones more approximated to shades of black and white than anything else.

    When friends and family finally persuaded us to “upgrade” (without, I should add with some bitterness, offering to stump up the wherewithal!) we purchased a machine of such size and splendour we could watch it from two metres away without binoculars. The very first film we saw on it was called Meteor––the nature of the subject of which I do not need to address––and I still recall seeing in bright technicolour (albeit in outer space) a giant rock hurtling through the galaxy and our bedroom.

    Now to the point. After a while we noticed our pleasure in said machine declining as we got used to the size and technology. With no choice in the matter, therefore, we acquired our next upgrade: a device of such colossal size we had to watch from outside the door otherwise it hurt our eyes.

    This story does have a happy ending, however. When we eventually left that flat and moved to our present one, we left the television behind.

  2. I sympathize with the luddism, but at this point I defend the private car and its glorious combination of privacy, comfort, and substantial control of one’s human and sensory environment against all comers.

    I’ve never owned one, nor had the need, but my dad always had one and I’ve rented at need. The rest of the time I’m afoot or on public transit, which in Ottawa is fine if a little unreliable.

    A car is infinitely superior and allows its user to remain human, not [also overdressed in winter] sweating, crammed-in cattle on uncomfortable seats or straining our muscles on poles and straps. Not to mention the car allows one escape from the other denizens of one’s community on the bus itself, still more the mental patients and drug addicts camping out at inner city stops.

    Now, the deleterious effect on humanity of the earlier, ultimately more destructive invention of the bicycle, that I can get behind. As an Ottawa pedestrian, my hatred of this contraption, its law-violating users, and its smug advocates knows few limits.

      1. I appreciate that I used hyperbole to demonstrate my hatred of them, which I made quite clear was the product of my life as a pedestrian. Cars do not threaten me. They do not drive on my sidewalks. They stay on their road and mostly follow rules of which I am myself aware, and signals which I myself can see and follow, and we understand how to deal with one another, and on the rare occasion one of them gets obstreperous, they make enough noise and are large enough to give me warning.
        Bicyclists ride their machines at speed on my sidewalks, or from road to sidewalk and back again willy-nilly, and/or slip from riding on the road, where they should, to crossing the road 90 degrees at a pedestrian crossing while still riding, instead of dismounting which is the correct procedure to use a pedestrian crossing. They ignore stop signs and red lights. Whether on the sidewalk or at crossings they whip past at speed ignoring pedestrians. All these behaviours are against local laws.
        I don’t know if the custom of the anonymously placed “ghost bike” exists in your part of the world. They do here. I am about one step short of laughing whenever I see one. Some large proportion of our bicyclists spit on the laws and on me as a pedestrian. I feel the same toward them.
        Come to think of it, if the destructiveness is meant to apply to the peace and safety of the humble urban footslogger, or the civility of urban life on the go in which people follow rules and behave as expected and required, yes, bicycles are proving more destructive of these things than cars.

  3. Recently I read an interesting piece (alas I forget where) describing how the automobile had saved major cities from the great environmental menace of the late 19th and early 20th century – the horse! The piece discomfited me because I am fond of horses and riding and certainly look sentimentally on photos and paintings of a world in which the horse was still the main means of transport. But it made some good points. The later 19c mega city should not be pictured as a charmingly tranquil relatively empty place because of the absence of cars…though no doubt there were some leafy suburbs like that. No, centres of cultural and economic life were more and more jammed with horse-drawn vehicles, and the downside was not just the crowding, but…um…the fact if cars emit fumes, horses emit horse pee and droppings…and tens of thousands of horses, e.g. in London, or Paris or Chicago, produced enormous amounts of the smelly, even corrosive biological wastes…City authorities tried hard to cope by employing people to clean it up, bank it up (there got to be great banks of it everywhere, like with snow but a lot nastier and smellier), but as city populations swelled, and transport needs multiplied and were still to a large extent served by horses, the problem kept outstripping ways to cope with it directly…There were even international conferences, full of experts offering dire warning about the tsunami of dung threatening urbanisation… The problem of cleaning the Augean modern city was, of course, rather unexpectedly solved by the rise of the private car, as well as automated public transport…

  4. I’m not sure what the answers would be.

    At this level of technological development we’re bound to travel some distances to and from work, shopping and other errands. It is difficult to actually live entirely in one’s own neighborhood of a city, and I am not wholly convinced very many people want to. It sounds very claustrophobic and mentally limiting. We might move somewhat in that direction, and thereby reduce everyday car travel. But that would still presumably leave some substantial desire to move around one’s city. And there would be new difficulties as people struggled to reconcile the work they wanted to do, the work they are qualified to do, the work that is available, and places they can live, all already difficult life challenges, with the added problem of making the work and home closely correspond geographically. Telework may enable this for some.

    For those able to live in small towns and villages, and not go insane in such stifling, un-private worlds, there would be some advantages, but that question of reconciling type and availability of work with location might increase, again barring work from home opportunities.

    I’m relying on telework as a leg for these futures to stand on, which is a potential problem as it’s ability to solve all work problems is being seriously tested right now, and it in and of itself would be a remarkable and potentially damaging practice if it became universal.

    Also, even if one has reduced one’s need to travel, for whatever one does a car still provides overwhelmingly superior comfort, privacy, security and flexibility compared to any kind of public mass transit at any price point.

    AS far as highways goes, yes, with the Roman, I look at roads and think truly and unironically “what a piece of work is man”. Like all physical infrastructure, they can be done well or poorly from an aesthetic point of view, and well or poorly from a durability and maintenance point of view, and they can be situated well or poorly from the point of view of existing urban environment, and that last can be worthy of preservation or ripe for replacement with a road, according to its quality. The roads’ decay and slapdash repair jobs is a function of the environment and the materials we use, as with our ugly buildings.

    Done well, roads and highways are as railroads, bridges, canals, aqueducts, sewers, buildings or any other built environment. Ornaments to the taming of the environment. It just depends on how and where, and what environment was there. In North America, the highways that stretch across the continent are a magnificent achievement. They at once demonstrate the taming of distance and nature, and how little they have affected distance and nature. There is still ample desert, forest, and mountain.

    In a more compact environment like England, I have found it hard to choose. The roads are neither more nor less ugly or disruptive than the railways, the original filthy human networks that cut across the land and spread pollution and ugly route-side commercial buildings.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

New English Review Press is a priceless cultural institution.
                              — Bruce Bawer

The perfect gift for the history lover in your life. Order on Amazon US, Amazon UK or wherever books are sold.

Order on Amazon, Amazon UK, or wherever books are sold.

Order on Amazon, Amazon UK or wherever books are sold.

Order on Amazon or Amazon UK or wherever books are sold

Order at Amazon, Amazon UK, or wherever books are sold. 

Order at Amazon US, Amazon UK or wherever books are sold.

Available at Amazon US, Amazon UK or wherever books are sold.

Send this to a friend